Latest news with #BalfourDeclaration
Arab Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab Times
Indeed, for Arabs, it is all ‘soap'
THE Sykes-Picot Agreement was the final nail in the coffin of the Ottoman Empire. The Balfour Declaration then marked the next phase in the division of influence between Britain and France, leading to a significant increase in Jewish immigration to Palestine. Even before that fateful declaration was issued, when Jewish settlements began to be established in Palestine in 1908, Palestinian landowners were wary of this development. However, they did not actively prevent the new settlements. As events accelerated after World War I, the Arabs lacked the military power needed to halt the process of Judaization. Meanwhile, Europe provided financial support to the new settlers, who succeeded in establishing a network of settlements and forming a self-defense force. After World War II, Europe and Germany, seeking to atone for the atrocities committed by Hitler against the Jews, facilitated the increased Jewish immigration to Palestine. This historical context is crucial in countering attempts to displace Palestinians from their land, particularly in light of the Israeli Finance Minister's statement about relocating Gaza's population to a third country. For nearly two decades, several Arab countries have witnessed civil wars and internal divisions. Yet, despite this, the slogan 'Free Palestine' continues to be raised, while actions often move in the opposite direction, or as we say in Kuwaiti slang, 'praying towards the east.' Since 1948, false accusations have been leveled against the late Egyptian King Farouk, claiming his involvement in the use of defective weapons during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. He was also accused of being reactionary and of collaborating with the West and the Zionist movement. These accusations were used to justify Major Jamal Abdel Nasser's coup against the king in 1952 and the secession of Sudan from Egypt. Such claims were also exploited by power-seekers in different Arab countries. This period marked the beginning of a wave of revolutions (coups) that swept through the Arab world, starting with Iraq and Syria, followed by a failed coup attempt in Lebanon, Yemen, and Libya. In 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi led a coup that ousted King Idris Al-Senussi in Libya. I still remember the chants of the demonstrators in Tripoli that day, shouting, 'The Devil is better than Idris.' It is said that when King Idris Al- Senussi heard those chants, he prayed to God that Libya be ruled by the Devil. We all know the history of Gaddafi after the success of his coup and how he adopted the liberation of Palestine as his slogan. However, Gaddafi went too far in threatening Arab rulers, intervening in the Lebanese civil war, and attempting to invade Chad, instead of directing his army to liberate Palestine. In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi's regime collapsed, and he was killed in one of the most brutal ways. Following his death, militia leaders took control of various regions in Libya. Despite being a country rich in natural resources, with beautiful coastlines and fertile land, Libya has been reduced to ruins since 1969. This is similar to what the Ba'ath Party regime did in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, who also raised the slogan of liberating Palestine. Saddam even went so far as to declare the formation of the 'Jerusalem Army.' However, instead of marching into Palestine, he invaded Kuwait. What has recently transpired in Libya, with Abdul Ghani al-Kikli, also known as 'Ghaniwa al-Kikli,' attempting to seize control of the country's resources and loot the central bank, mirrors what gangs in Somalia and Iraq have done. It has become evident that the slogan of liberating Palestine is often nothing more than a justification or pretext for theft and the illegal assumption of power. Even Palestinian factions, who are supposed to be the most dedicated to their cause, are not exempt from this behavior. This is why the proverb 'It is all soap to the Arabs,' which has been a hallmark of Arab culture since the year 800, when Ibn Khaldun referenced it in his book 'Ibn Khaldun and the Arabs', seems especially relevant today. What is happening in the Middle East is the result of a long history of division and discord, often at the expense of peoples and nations. In the end, as the saying goes, for Arabs, it is all 'soap'.
Arab News
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Franco-British recognition could usher in a new era for Palestine
This should have happened decades ago. It may still not happen. It should be a plain and simple, uncontroversial decision. It is not. Yet the words of President Emmanuel Macron of France have triggered a scintilla of hope that a major power will join the 147 states to have recognized the state of Palestine. 'We must move toward recognition and we will do so in the coming months,' Macron said this month. But France must not be an isolated actor in this. It cannot be a Macron-only declaration. Is it too much to think that others might join him? Above all, one power — the UK — should follow Macron's lead and give new force to a renewed Entente Cordiale. Imagine a Franco-British recognition of Palestine. Symbolically, it would be huge. Marcon and Prime Minister Keir Starmer standing together — the leaders of the two major European colonial states, the ones that so brutally and imperially carved up the Middle East more than a century ago. The Sykes-Picot powers — with one, Britain, also being the author of the infamous Balfour Declaration — could start to remedy a small part of the damage that was perpetrated in cigar-filled rooms all those years ago. It would leave the US as the only permanent member of the UN Security Council not to recognize the state of Palestine. It would encourage the remaining European and other powers to join in. How long, for example, would Germany, Italy and the Netherlands want to be isolated? Could Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand follow suit? Momentum would be crucial. The Sykes-Picot powers could start to remedy a small part of the damage that was perpetrated all those years ago Chris Doyle The text of any recognition would matter. It should recognize Palestine on the 1967 lines with immediate effect. No doubt they would state that, if Palestine and Israel were to agree new borders, then this would be altered accordingly. One issue would be embassies. The Palestinian leadership would want an embassy in Jerusalem, just as Israel wants these states to shift their diplomatic presence from Tel Aviv to the city. Perhaps, given the situation, embassies will be set up temporarily in Ramallah while keeping consulates in Jerusalem. The long-term European political position has always been not to recognize any state's sovereignty over any part of the city. None of this is to suggest at all that this would resolve the conflict or bring the genocide and system of apartheid to an end. Recognition should not even be the priority, which right now must be to end the complete siege of Gaza that was imposed more than 50 days ago and to bring an end to the bombing frenzy the Israeli forces carry out every single day. Recognition will mean little if those processes are not terminated with immediate effect. France says that recognition will be conditional on the release of hostages in Gaza and Hamas no longer being in charge of the Strip. But all this does is give Hamas additional motivation not to adhere to either demand, as it opposes a two-state solution. But while dealing with the ongoing emergency, the medium to long-term outlook still matters. This is why Macron's summit with Saudi Arabia in June is so important. The visit of French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot to Saudi Arabia last week brought this into sharp focus. The pre-summit diplomacy and legwork is typically even more vital than the event itself. If external parties are serious about a solution, then this reinforces their preferred option: the two-state solution. Apart from the US, pretty much every state has backed this template to resolve the conflict, but too many have so far only recognized one state — Israel. If external parties are serious about a solution, then this reinforces their preferred option: the two-state solution Chris Doyle Many Palestinians no longer see the two-state solution as viable given the massive illegal Israeli colonial settlement enterprise. So, recognition needs to not rule out any consideration of other long-term solutions, including a one-state option, a federal or a binational state, but it would at least allow a state of Palestine to negotiate as a state and be respected as such. Israel will expect further recognition of its statehood from regional powers. But it should have to end its occupation and accept a state of Palestine. That is the bare minimum, essentially the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002: a full withdrawal in return for a full peace. Fresh recognitions of Palestine serve to strengthen international backing for the Palestinian right to self-determination and confirm that, as a people, they have national rights. It would end the nauseating disputes as to whether Palestine should be treated as a state in international bodies. Anti-Palestinian groups still argue, with no merit, that such agencies cannot have jurisdiction as Palestine is not a state. Many might see France and Britain as hangovers from a bygone era. Yet such a joint move, right now, would show that these two powers still retain some weight in international affairs. They can shift trends in the right direction, not least when the US is more of an obstacle than a facilitator. But if Europe wishes to be taken seriously, this should be a full Europe-wide recognition. The continent can show it is just as prepared to adapt its position on the Middle East as it is on Russia-Ukraine.
The Independent
12-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
When Macron recognises Palestine, Starmer must follow suit
This summer, France is expected to align its foreign policy with international law by recognising the State of Palestine alongside Israel. France and Saudi Arabia are working together to draw up a framework for Middle East peace. So far, so good. But, right now, where is Britain on this issue? It should be leading – not following. Our country has the historic responsibility, stemming from the broken promises of the Balfour Declaration and our misconduct of the Mandate up to 1948. There is urgency: under Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is undermining systematically any prospect of two states coexisting at peace – the bipartisan policy of successive British governments. Commendably, Keir Starmer works hand in glove with Emmanuel Macron on Ukraine and on US-handling in this new era. American unpredictability shows the wisdom of Starmer's moves since July to restore and strengthen our ties with European partners on foreign policy, defence and migration. Palestine/Israel must be a key element in this effort. Our government was elected on a commitment to recognise Palestine and uphold international law without fear or favour. We should give a lead in Europe and the Commonwealth consistent with our values and in our national interest. The rule of law is in our interest. For Britain, the question is not one of diplomacy alone – it is also one of justice and historical accountability. Over a century ago, Britain and France secretly negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreement, carving up the Ottoman Empire's Arab provinces into spheres of influence. Britain acquired control of Palestine under the League of Nations Mandate, with a stated duty to assist its people towards independence. That promise was broken. The Palestinian Arab majority of the population were made homeless, displaced. Since 1967, Palestine has been under Israeli military occupation. Last July, the International Court of Justice advised that the 1967 occupation is unlawful; all UN member states must work to end it as rapidly as possible. Failure to recognise Palestine serves to prolong that unlawful occupation. Recognition of Palestine is not about taking sides, nor rewarding terrorism, nor delegitimising Israel. It is about parity of esteem, redressing a profound imbalance in international relations while upholding international law. Israel, created in 1948 and recognised immediately by the US, then by Britain and so many others, is a full member of the global order. Palestine remains in a permanent state of limbo. Britain cannot continue to profess support for a two-state solution while refusing to recognise one of the two states. There is no legal impediment to recognition. In 2011, then foreign secretary William Hague confirmed that Palestine meets the criteria for statehood, subject to the occupation. The ICJ deems the occupation to be unlawful. Our government recognises states, not governments, and says that the decision to recognise is ours alone – the occupation does not give Israel a veto; 147 of the world's 193 nations recognise Palestine. The 2012 UN General Assembly vote granting Palestine non-member observer state status passed with overwhelming support. Our government, the ICJ and the United Nations have consistently affirmed that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied Palestinian territory, not Israeli land. The continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and has been condemned as illegal in multiple UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 2334 of 2016, which Britain helped to draft. British recognition of Palestine on pre-June 1967 lines will not prejudice final status negotiations, nor question Israel's right to exist in peace and security. Rather, it reaffirms that the Palestinian people have the self-same right to self-determination and statehood that Israel enjoys and sends a clear message that the international community will not accept unilateral annexation or perpetual occupation. As the ICJ stated in its 2004 advisory opinion on the Israeli separation barrier in the West Bank, all states have a legal obligation not to recognise the unlawful situation resulting from Israeli actions in occupied Palestinian territory. Some argue that recognition should come only at the end of negotiations or as part of a 'peace process'. But the geopolitical case for recognition now is strong. As the US pursues further regional normalisation between Israel and Arab states, recognition of Palestine by key European governments – last year, Spain, Ireland and Norway said they recognised a Palestinian state based on borders established before the war in 1967 – will serve as a vital counterweight, reminding all parties that Palestinian rights cannot be shelved or ignored. France aims to coordinate recognition with efforts by Arab states to recognise Israel, potentially within a broader peace framework. Britain should support this dual-track approach, reinforcing the vision of two states living side by side in peace. Imperial Britain helped draw the borders of the modern Middle East, for good and ill. Our government now has a chance to help the peoples of the Middle East to reshape its future, by giving a lead.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Christian Zionism hasn't always been a conservative evangelical creed – churches' views of Israel have evolved over decades
During confirmation hearings, Mike Huckabee, President Donald Trump's nominee as ambassador to Israel, told senators that he would 'respect and represent the President,' not his own views. But the Baptist minister's views on the Middle East – and their religious roots – came through. 'The spiritual connections between your church, mine, many churches in America, Jewish congregations, to the state of Israel is because we ultimately are people of the book,' he said on March 25, 2025, in response to a question from a senator. 'We believe the Bible, and therefore that connection is not geopolitical. It is also spiritual.' Huckabee is one of the GOP's most prominent 'Christian Zionists' – a phrase often associated with conservative evangelicals' support for Israel. But Christian Zionism is much older than the 1980s alliance between the Republican Party and the religious right. American Christian attitudes toward the idea of a Jewish state have been evolving and changing dramatically since long before Israel's creation. Zionism's modern form emerged in the late 19th century. Its declared aim was to create a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine, then under control of the Ottoman Empire. This was the land from which Jews were exiled in antiquity. The 'founding father' of the modern movement was Theodore Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian Jewish intellectual and activist who convened the first Zionist Congress in Switzerland in 1897. While most of the 200 attendees were Jews from various parts of the world, there were also prominent Protestant Christian leaders in attendance: church leaders and philanthropists who supported 'the restoration of the Jews to their land.' Herzl dubbed these allies 'Christian Zionists.' Catholic leaders, however, were not among the supporters of a Jewish state. The prospect of a Jewish state in the Christian Holy Land challenged the church's view of Judaism as a religion whose people were condemned to permanent exile as punishment for rejecting Christ. Eventually, in the wake of the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel, attitudes shifted. In 1965, reforms at the Vatican II council signaled a radical change for the better in Catholic-Jewish relations. But it would be three decades until that change was reflected in the Vatican's diplomatic recognition of the Jewish state. In contrast, Protestants were more open to Jews' aspiration to return. In 1917, the British foreign secretary published the Balfour Declaration, announcing government support for 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.' With the British victory over the Ottoman Empire, the area soon fell under British control in the form of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine. In the U.S., the idea elicited enthusiasm among conservative Christians who hoped that the Jews' return to Israel would help hasten the end times, when they believed Christ would return. Within a few years, Congress endorsed the Balfour Declaration. Pastor W. Fuller Gooch summed up the evangelical reaction to the Balfour Declaration: 'Palestine is for the Jews. The most striking 'Sign of the Times' is the proposal to give Palestine to the Jews once more. They have long desired the land, though as yet unrepentant of the terrible crime which led to their expulsion.' This 'terrible crime' refers to Jews' rejection of Jesus – one of multiple anti-Jewish tropes in the sermon. Two decades later, prominent American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr declared himself a supporter of political Zionism. Unlike evangelicals, Niebuhr's support for a Jewish state was based on pragmatic grounds: Considering the dangerous situation in 1930s Europe, he argued, Jews needed a state in order to be safe. In the early 1940s, Niebuhr wrote a series of articles titled 'Jews After the War' for The Nation magazine. His biographer Richard W. Fox called these articles 'an eloquent statement of the Zionist case: The Jews had rights not just as individuals, but as a people, and they deserved not just a homeland, but a homeland in Palestine.' Thus, in the 1930s and '40s, two different types of American Christian Zionism emerged. Some liberal Protestants, while giving qualified support to Zionism, expressed concern for the fate of the Palestinian Arabs. Conservative evangelicals, on the other hand, tended to be more hostile to Arab political aspirations. In 1947, on the eve of the United Nations' vote on the partition of Palestine, Niebuhr and six other prominent American intellectuals wrote a long letter to The New York Times, arguing that a Jewish state in the Middle East would serve American interests. 'Politically, we would like to see the lands of the Middle East practice democracy as we do here,' they wrote. 'Thus far there is only one vanguard of progress and modernization in the Middle East, and that is Jewish Palestine.' In 1948, the U.S. government, at President Harry Truman's direction, granted the newly declared state of Israel diplomatic recognition, over the objections of State Department officials. There were, of course, prominent Americans who objected to recognizing Israel, or to embracing it so strongly. Among them was journalist Dorothy Thompson, who had turned against the Zionist cause after a Jewish militant group bombed Jerusalem's King David Hotel in 1946. These opponents made the case for supporting emerging Arab nationalism and Palestinian autonomy and asserted that recognizing Israel would deepen America's entanglement in the unfolding Middle Eastern conflicts. But by the late 1950s and '60s, American criticism of Israel was increasingly muted. Liberal Christians, in particular, viewed it as a beleaguered democratic state and ally. Conservative Christian Zionists, meanwhile, continued to often view 'love of Israel' through a biblical lens. In the late '60s, the American journal Christianity Today published an article by editor Nelson Bell, father-in-law of famous evangelist Billy Graham. Jewish control of Jerusalem inspires 'renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible,' Bell wrote. Fifteen years later, televangelist Jerry Falwell told an interviewer that Jewish people have both a theological and historical 'right to the land.' He added, 'I am personally a Zionist, having gained that perspective from my belief in Old Testament scriptures.' These Christians, like some Jewish religious Zionists, saw 'the hand of God' in Israel's conquest of East Jerusalem during the Six-Day War of 1967. They considered any territorial compromise with Arab states and the Palestinians to be an act against God. During the 1980s, as the Republican Party forged alliances with the emerging religious right, Israel would become a core cause for the GOP. Some liberal Jews who supported Israel grew alarmed by these ties and by the rightward shift in Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Yet this brand of Christian Zionism is clearly the forerunner to today's – and holds sway in Washington. Today, 83% of Republicans view Israel favorably, compared with 33% of Democrats. Republicans in Congress are pushing to use the biblical terms 'Judea and Samaria' instead of 'the West Bank.' Evangelical Christian Zionists continue to call for support of the Israeli right and of settlers in the occupied territories. And in Huckabee, they see a potential ambassador who shares their views. In 2009, when Huckabee was considering a presidential campaign, he visited Israel and met with settler leaders. On hearing of Huckabee's presidential aspirations, a rabbi said, 'We hope that under Mike Huckabee's presidency, he will be like Cyrus and push us to rebuild the Temple and bring the final redemption.' The rabbi was referring to the biblical story of Cyrus, King of Persia, and his proclamation that the exiled Jews be allowed to return to Zion. Seven decades after the state of Israel's founding, evangelical Christian Zionism's influence is greater than ever. This turn to the political right is very far from the mid-20th century Zionism of Truman, Niebuhr and the Democratic Party. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Shalom Goldman, Middlebury Read more: Palestinians have long resisted resettlement – Trump's plan to 'clean out' Gaza won't change that Jewish critics of Zionism have clashed with American Jewish leaders for decades When is criticism of Israel antisemitic? A scholar of modern Jewish history explains Shalom Goldman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Al-Ahram Weekly
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Arab ambassadors support British organization promoting equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians - War on Gaza
Arab ambassadors in London, along with British members of Parliament and the House of Lords, came together this week to support the relaunch of the Britain Palestine Project, previously known as the Balfour Project, an organization championing a two-state solution and equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians. Lord Nicholas Soames, Baron Soames of Fletching, Winston Churchill's grandson, and patron of the organization, hosted the reception. Held in the historic River Room of the House of Lords overlooking the Thames and the London Eye, the event brought together civil society organizations and many other supporters in this field. In bold opening remarks, Lord Soames called on the British government to acknowledge its historic responsibility and make up for past failings by playing a leading role today in promoting justice and equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis. In 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, in what is known as the Balfour Declaration, promised the Zionist movement the UK's support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. "The 1917 Balfour Declaration underscores British unfinished obligations to the Palestinian people," Lord Soames said. While proclaiming British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the Balfour Declaration made an explicit provision to the people living in Palestine by saying that nothing should be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of its Arab inhabitants. "A hundred and eight years on, these (promises) are, shamefully, clearly, not been upheld, creating a historic injustice that should weigh very heavily upon us in Britain," he added. Redressing the historical injustice inflicted on Palestinians is paramount to the newly renamed British Palestine Project, formerly known as the Balfour Project. This registered UK charity is focused on educating the public about Britain's historical role in Mandate Palestine and its current responsibilities in addressing "the conflict." It emphasises the British responsibility and duty to compensate for past mistakes by leading efforts to achieve a just and peaceful resolution. It advocates for equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians and encourages the UK government to recognize the state of Palestine. According to Lord Soames, the UK must uphold equal standards when dealing with both sides to prevent discrimination. ''We cannot champion self-determination and statehood for the people of Ukraine while denying Palestinians the same rights," he said. He called for Britain to finally recognize the state of Palestine, which would serve the country's national interest and be the right thing to do. Lord Soames clarified that "recognizing Palestinian statehood is not in any way anti-Israel. It simply affirms the equal rights of both Palestinians and Israelis," adding, "I strongly believe that is also in the long-term interest of the people of Israel. Without Palestine, Palestinian self-determination alongside Israel, there will be no Peace." Admitting that the two-state solution is slipping away and peace talks have stalled, Lord Soames believes that the UK's recognition of Palestine would galvanize diplomacy and send a clear message that the status quo is unacceptable. "It would be truly shameful for Britain to withhold recognition any longer," he iterated. "The World Bank, the IMF, and the UN have long acknowledged that Palestine fulfils the criteria for statehood." In front of the same multicultural and multireligious audience, chair of the British Palestine Project Andrew Whitley stressed that "The name change reaffirms our primary focus on Britain's role, past and present, in what was the Mandate Territory of Palestine: the home of two peoples who must, in future, enjoy both equal rights and equality of security. They are interdependent. One side can never be subordinated to the other, morally, legally or practically." Instead of being a follower, Whitley called on the British government to be a leader in helping bring about a better outcome for Palestinians than is now in prospect. "How things turn out, for better or worse, will depend on two things. First and foremost is political willpower on the part of key regional countries and their Western allies, notably Britain, to resist negative proposals and insist on solutions based on upholding the rights of the Palestinian people. The second is …. the defence of international law and international legal institutions. The recent outcome of the Cairo Summit of Arab states was an excellent start. I congratulate Egypt on its skillful management of the meeting". Andrew Whitley underscored that "the Balfour Project consistently called for our government to recognize Palestine now, not at a future date, and to do it together with our allies. The Britain Palestine Project will pick up the same banner." Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
